Dawkins on ID: Sometimes, one side is wrong.

[seebs]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1559743,00.html

One of us spent years as an Oxford tutor and it was his habit to choose controversial topics for the students' weekly essays. They were required to go to the library, read about both sides of an argument, give a fair account of both, and then come to a balanced judgment in their essay. The call for balance, by the way, was always tempered by the maxim, "When two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly half way between. It is possible for one side simply to be wrong."​

Excellent article.

 

[stumpjumper]

Although I disagree with many of the points that ID makes and I do not think that they make any scientific claims whatsoever, I am not a big fan of Dawkins.

But, in that link, Dawkins may be correct that sometimes one side is just wrong. Here is a good link to an NPR episode that had Kenneth Miller and Michael Behe trading points on ID. I agree wholeheartedly with Miller and would urge any YEC to read his book Finding Darwins God

ID/EVO

Miller on God: God

 

[seebs]

Oh, Dawkins is a bit of a twit sometimes. But he can be right some of the time anyway.

 

[Dust and Ashes]

Isn't Dawkins a militant evangelical atheist who has equated religion with computer viruses calling it a "software" virus that affects the human brain? I'm not asking this with any regards to ID, evolution, YEC or anything, just saw his name in the thread title and thought it was a good place to ask it since it isn't worthy of its own thread.

 

[gluadys]

Isn't Dawkins a militant evangelical atheist who has equated religion with computer viruses calling it a "software" virus that affects the human brain? I'm not asking this with any regards to ID, evolution, YEC or anything, just saw his name in the thread title and thought it was a good place to ask it since it isn't worthy of its own thread.

Yes, that's the one. Though I would leave out the adjective "evangelical".

He also happens to be a very good scientist. So read him for science, but take everything else he says with a big grain of salt, knowing where it's coming from.

For Christian approaches to science, read people like Kenneth Miller and Bob Bakker on biology and evolution, and John Polkinghorne on physics and cosmology.

 

[_Paladin_]

would militant athiest be better? seriously I think evolution would have a better standing with protestants like myself if there wasnt so much anti-christian rhetoric in the anti-ID community.

 

[Smidlee]

Here's picture of Dawkins that says it all:

 

[Dust and Ashes]

Anyone else think it would be fun to watch a debate between Dawkins and Kent Hovind? I'd bring the beer and pretzels.

 

[immortalavefenix]

He also happens to be a very good scientist

Yes and we all know how evil scientist are right.

 

[shernren]

Oh no. It would be painfully embarrassing.

(by the way, my blur ... which one is Dawkins? )

 

[tryptophan]

Dawkins can be a bit of a prick at times. Of course, that doesn't mean he's always wrong, and he does know his science.

 

[artybloke]

Here's picture of Dawkins that says it all:

Am I the only one who thinks that rescuing Jesus from the religious might be a very good thing?